2010/1/18 R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com>: > On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:56:05 -0500, "Steve Steiner (listsin)" > <list...@integrateddevcorp.com> wrote: >> As much of a pain as it is to get new modules accepted, I agree that >> mixing archiving functions into shutil is not the right way to do it >> and that a separate archive_util module would make much more sense and >> would give a logical place to put any extensions to archive handling. > > Looking at the source code and API for both shutil and archive_util, I > think that the archive_util methods fit into shutil. shutil currently > wraps some standard library facilities with convenience functions > for operations you might otherwise perform at the shell command line using > OS facilities. As far as I can tell, archive_util does the same, and > seems quite within the shutil mission of "high level file operations". > > So +1 from me for putting these in shutil.
Conceptually, I'm happy with these going into shutil (and +1 on the rest of Tarek's proposal, too!) To my mind, shutil is a module for higher-level operations on files - the sort of things you'd do in shell commands, like move a batch of files around (mv), create a directory tree (mkdir -p). Tarring or zipping up a batch of files fits nicely into that space. Paul. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
